For normal Americans, the annual Values Voters Summit is an opportunity to take a look at the Republican Party and be appalled and amused at how vehemently anti-modernity and hysterically bigoted it remains despite basically all demographic trends. For Republican politicians, it is an opportunity to say crazy stuff to adoring crowds in the hopes of riding their enthusiasm and donations all the way to second or third place in the next Republican presidential primary campaign. Sen. Rand Paul today addressed the summit, and he wanted everyone to know that while he may have a bit of a “peacenik” reputation, he definitely hates Islam just as much as the people who want to bomb the Middle East forever.

Wow! That is surely hyperbole, right? I wonder what Rand Paul said that would allow Pareene to “paraphrase” him like that?

We get no such quotes. But hang on, Pareene continues with his summary:

Paul’s speech (which greatly resembles one he gave to an evangelical audience last June) hit nearly every toxic fixation and delusion of the evangelical Right. He generously indulged the persecution fantasy that fuels so much of the modern conservative movement, claiming that “there’s a worldwide war on Christianity,” waged largely by Islam, but also by “liberal elites.” It is “a war that the mainstream media is ignoring,” he said. Mainstream media liberals are too scared and too PC to say it, but Paul wasn’t: We must blame Muslims more or less as a homogeneous undifferentiated mass.

OK get ready, Pareene does follow the above with a direct quotation from Rand Paul. Everyone ready? Remember, Pareene said Paul wasn’t afraid to come out and say: “We must blame Muslims more or less as a homogeneous undifferentiated mass.” OK ready? Here’s what Rand Paul actually said, which Pareene then paraphrased that way:

Ever since 9/11, commentators have tried to avoid pointing fingers at Islam, which is somewhat fair. It is fair to point out that most Muslims are not committed to violence against Christians, but it’s not the whole truth. The whole truth is – and we shouldn’t let political correctness stand in the way of this truth – the whole truth is that there is a minority of Muslims who condone killing of Christians, but, unfortunately, that minority number is in the tens of millions.

Like I said, in this article Alex Pareene more or less endorses Rand Paul for 2016.

36 Responses to “Salon’s Alex Pareene More or Less Endorses Rand Paul for 2016”

So no, Bob. He is saying that what you quoted IS reasonable and he is CONTRASTING that with other unreasonable parts of the speech where he goes on about a “worldwide war on Christianity” and says that it is a “war that the mainstream media is ignoring”.

Sen. Rand Paul today addressed the summit, and he wanted everyone to know that while he may have a bit of a “peacenik” reputation, he definitely hates Islam just as much as the people who want to bomb the Middle East forever.

I think the “war on Christianity” thing is nonsense, but I didn’t get the above from Paul’s speech — I just got a rant on how Christians are persecuted in Muslim countries. But, let’s be honest, some of these things should be talked about more. If a Muslim person was beheaded in Israel by Jewish thugs, the world would go crazy.

Today I want to talk about a war that the mainstream media is ignoring. From Boston to Zanzibar, there’s a worldwide war on Christianity. (Cheers, applause.) Christians are being attacked around the world, but you won’t hear much about it on the evening news because the answer’s not convenient. It doesn’t fit the narrative we have been told about radical Islam. The president tries to gloss over who’s attacking and killing Christians. The media describes the killings as “sectarian.” But the truth is, a worldwide war on Christians is being waged by a fanatical element of Islam.

Daniel, what in the world are you talking about? Here is the relevant excerpt from Pareene’s article:

[PAREENE:] Mainstream media liberals are too scared and too PC to say it, but Paul wasn’t: We must blame Muslims more or less as a homogeneous undifferentiated mass.

[QUOTING RAND PAUL:]Ever since 9/11, commentators have tried to avoid pointing fingers at Islam, which is somewhat fair. It is fair to point out that most Muslims are not committed to violence against Christians, but it’s not the whole truth. The whole truth is –and we shouldn’t let political correctness stand in the way of this truth– the whole truth is that there is a minority of Muslims who condone killing of Christians, but, unfortunately, that minority number is in the tens of millions.

You’re telling me Pareene had some other Rand Paul line in mind, where RP said political correctness shouldn’t stop us from saying the truth, that we should treat all Muslims the same?

There are plenty of places Pareene “paraphrased” RP by putting words in his mouth that he clearly didn’t say, like e.g. RP obviously didn’t say, “I hate Muslims” even though that’s what Pareene claimed Rand said.

Your job Daniel is to show me what Rand quote Pareene did have in mind. The plain evidence says that the quote Pareene gave is the one he had in mind.

No Daniel, you are totally wrong. I’m not only annoyed at your interpretation, I’m mad that Jonathan and others are even playing ball with you.

Tel’s quote is about the war on Christianity–and Pareene did quote snippets of that, not in a block quote, but inside his main sentences with quotation marks. But the part about “more or less” all Muslims should be treated the same, is clearly, unequivocally pointing to Rand talking about the PC stuff.

And even if you are right, and Pareene’s “more or less” refers to the quote Tel provided, then Pareene is still a liar. Rand said “a fanatical element of Islam.” Daniel, if I say an element of the real numbers is positive, am I saying “more or less all real numbers should be treated as positive”?

(And yes I said “I’m done” but now I’m reneging on that. I’m at least acknowledging that I said something false.)

The “collective guilt” that Pareene referred to was the end of the block quotation of Rand. The “reasonable” stuff was the beginning of that block quotation, when Rand said most Muslims are peaceful.

The reason I didn’t include that, is I didn’t believe there would be any dispute about what Rand quotation Pareene had in mind, when he claimed Rand said “more or less” all Muslims should be treated the same.

My point is fairly simple, here, Daniel: Rand quite clearly said we should not treat all Muslims the same, and yet Pareene took his words as evidence that we should.

We must blame Muslims more or less as a homogeneous undifferentiated mass.

I read the entire Rand Paul speech end to end, everyone here should read it, he brings up lots of highly specific examples of the sort of incidents he is talking about, and at no point anywhere does he attempt to “blame Muslims more or less as a homogeneous undifferentiated mass”. Nowhere. Not even a little bit.

I read the entire Rand Paul speech end to end, everyone here should read it, he brings up lots of highly specific examples of the sort of incidents he is talking about, and at no point anywhere does he attempt to “blame Muslims more or less as a homogeneous undifferentiated mass”. Nowhere. Not even a little bit.

And in fact, in many places he says the exact opposite. (I haven’t listened to the speech, but Tel’s report doesn’t surprise me.) If Pareene had said “…but these are code words for blaming all Muslims and for profiling…” I probably wouldn’t have blogged anything about it. But Pareene was saying Rand said the exact opposite of what Rand actually said.

Let me drive home the point one more way: If Rand had said, “Muslims are basically decent people and we should treat all of them with the respect they deserve,” then that would have been closer to what Pareene said Rand had said. Because in that case, Rand indeed would have been saying all Muslims are more or less a homogeneous group.

So in conclusion, it would be hard to come up with hypothetical Rand Paul statements that were further from Pareene’s description, than the statements Rand Paul actually made.

The important point, for me, is that Parnee is far fairer to Rand Paul than the impression I initially got reading this post. He does seem to talk out of both sides of his mouth (not particularly surprising for a politician), and he seems to work them up in some points and have reasonable claims at other points (presumably to keep guys like Bob on board).

I don’t know about a co ordinated war but, speaking as one of FA’s most assertive atheists, there surely are a lot of skirmishes going on. Copts are under assault in Egypt and have been increasingly so for years. One hopes that will be better under the military. Christianity is being driven out of many parts of the Muslim world.
Attacks in American popular culture are a completely different animal of course but Bob has often cited, correctly, double standards in elite American opinion. Just in the linked article it’s clear that the expected audience is comfortable with denigrating Christians; how would a similar contemning of Muslims fare?

Real Atheism is under attack as well. Lots of people call themselves Atheist these days, while simultaneously believing in fairies, good spirits, Global Warming, and the existence of human collective that only whispers its deepest desires to a special anointed group of enlightened ones.

Science is also under attack, if you consider scientific method and empirical methods (e.g. measurements without adjustments and homogenisation).

re: “He generously indulged the persecution fantasy that fuels so much of the modern conservative movement, claiming that “there’s a worldwide war on Christianity,” waged largely by Islam, but also by “liberal elites.”

I, for one, am concerned about the war being waged by elements of Islam on the liberal elites.

For those that don’t click through – that quote is actually NOT what Pareene is paraphrasing.

I’d say that if a quote directly follows a paraphrase, the quote is there to show what you are paraphrasing.

Of that quote (the one that Bob has here), Pareene has this to say:

Saying something about the quote following the quote doesn’t somehow “detach” it from the paraphrase.

So no, Bob. He is saying that what you quoted IS reasonable and he is CONTRASTING that with other unreasonable parts of the speech

No, he says there are reasonable parts and unreasonable parts, but he doesn’t say this is one of the reasonable parts. In fact what I think he means is that this quote shows the mix of reasonable and unreasonable parts, because he writes “The entire speech was like this, really:” But strictly speaking the colon makes “this” refer to what’s after the colon (I think), and therefore not to the quote. I that’s really how he meant it, my interpretation may be wrong. But in that case he *doesn’t say anything* about the quote after the quote, so your interpretation is wrong also.

This is going to come as a shock to some people, but there is no Muslim war on Christianity. The Muslim position on the Bible has always been that the Bible DOES contain revelation from God, but that the Bible as a whole has been corrupted over time by historians. Because of this, the Muslims hold a certain respect for the Bible, and thus they’re not going to go out of their way and kill people because they’re Christians on that basis alone.

No, the majority of this nonsense has got everything to do with Western interference in the Middle East. If anyone would like to read more on this, here is my recommended starting point.

This is going to shock some people but there has never been a Christian war on Judaism. The Christian position on the Jewish Bible has always been that the Jewish Bible DOES contain revelation from God, but that the Jewish Bible and teachings have been misunderstood and distorted over time. Because of this, the Christians held a certain respect for the Jesish Bible, and thus they never went out of their way to kill, tax, or persecute people because they were Jews on that basis alone.

I’m not arguing there is a war on Christianity, I’m just pointing out how fatuous Pruit’s argument — with its claim of “the” muslim position, its apologetics, its blindness to history — really is.

“The early Christians were persecuted for reasons of state, the collective welfare; and they resisted for the right of personality, each because he had a soul of his own.” ~ Isabel Patterson

And that quote pretty much shows why your point is nonsense. The so-called religious wars were hardly ever over religion. In fact, it was political nonsense justified with religion.

Besides that, the Qur’an, while it gives arguments against Christianity, does not condone the killing of Christians. In fact, the Qur’an even praises Christians, but tells you to judge among them. If you’d like exact quotations, I can see to it that you get those.

There’s no blindness to history here, nor are there any apologetics here, I’m just stating cold facts. So your entire post is completely asinine.

No, you made yourself look silly is all that happened. The point of the Isabel Patterson quote was to show that religion doesn’t have as much to do with persecution as you’re leading people to believe, but I guess you didn’t see it.

I know, maybe I’ll teach by example. THIS is an example of looking at a minority element of a wider group, and yet using their actions to render a verdict of collective guilt on the whole group:

For normal Americans, the annual Values Voters Summit is an opportunity to take a look at the Republican Party and be appalled and amused at how vehemently anti-modernity and hysterically bigoted it remains despite basically all demographic trends.

See the difference, Daniel? Now if Pareene had said, “Most Republicans are not bigoted, but we must face the truth that a minority of them are–but this minority constitutes millions of Republicans,” then it would be wrong of me to accuse him of collective guilt.

However, Pareene gave no such caveats. He said the Republican Party is bigoted, period.

So like I say, THAT’s an example of collective guilt, of saying a group of people out there should be treated more or less as one homogeneous group.

I hope you see the distinction now that you have two real-world examples.

Also, in case people are wondering, I’m calling him “Rand” not because we know each other personally, but because I don’t want to say “Paul” and have people mentally associate this with Ron Paul. So “Rand” is the simplest solution, even though it suggests a familiarity I don’t have with the man.

Bob, I do not understand why you actually keep on debating with Daniel. I am no fan of the Republican party (at all), but it is absurd to write, as Daniel does, that

“The important point, for me, is that Parnee is far fairer to Rand Paul than the impression I initially got reading this post”

about such a boldly, avowedly partisan column.

Moreover,

“Mainstream media liberals are too scared and too PC to say it, but Paul wasn’t: We must blame Muslims more or less as a homogeneous undifferentiated mass.”

can indeed only refer to

“The whole truth is – and we shouldn’t let political correctness stand in the way of this truth – the whole truth is that there is a minority of Muslims who condone killing of Christians, but, unfortunately, that minority number is in the tens of millions.”

I do think that Daniel is mostly behaving as a troll here, and that it’s been this way for a while. And for all the fun that comes with debating with a dissenting voice in a mostly misesian environment, I think it would be better for your blood pressure to stop replying… I certainly feels to me like you are wasting your time feeding your personal troll this way,

WTC7. Look it up. Pretty much invalidates the main geopolitical theme of the last twelve years. Oh yes, I am one of those deluded conspiracy theorists. Although I suppose it is deluded to think people will change their minds about this.